TOPIC:

wrote:

wrote:

So Swans attracted GF crowds of 23000 against a side that dominated the competition and 24600 against another poorly supported club. Well done. Imagine a Swans v Perth. Perth v EP, throw EF in there and we know WP are great front runner's they'll turn up.

 

WP v EP only attracted 19K - Oh thats right it rained.

Did you turn up to the last two South games? Because it was streamed and it rained?

wrote:

I think you're on your lonesome on this one Baz. GF's in 2018 and 2019 attracted crowds of 25k and 19k respectively notwithstanding the dominance of Subi. Neither could have been accommodated at a suburban ground including a revamped Freo Oval. As stated before on this thread, get two of the bigger crowd pulling clubs in a GF and it will be a total shambles.

As I posted previously imagine if you were a supporter of a WAFL club like Perth and can't get a ticket to the GF?

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

Hey Swan your a greet Labor man and they have supreme power at the moment In the state , why don’t you get onto the labor sports minister and see what’s going on , surely them being the party or the people will guarantee a wafl GF at optus and underwrite payments equal to those participating clubs made at Fremantle Oval last year ? Given he has a permanent seat on the waflc board and power of veto:

What percentage of their salaries should I get for doing the WAFC and CEO jobs for them?  



 

get onto Tony Butti he;s the minister responsible Swan get him to sort it.

How much will I be getting of their salaries to do their work for them?

Hey swan. Tony Butti is the responsible minister, he also sat on the WAFC inquiry, he is on over 200K a year tell him to do his job..its his not yours.

I presume you were being deliberately obtuse.

wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.

BC I would ask why the WAFC does not want to try to increase interest and attendances at WAFL games?

wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.

Exactly, this penny pinching small brain attitude is ridiculous, all it's done is get a few club presidents excited wetting themselves trying to win a bidding war so it puts money in their coffers. The WAFL is part of the fabric of Western Australian society and AFL fans should not forget it is where the Eagles and Dockers were born from, more so the Eagles. To play it at a sub standard ground that would deny thousands of supporters is complete madness. SF president Peter Christie is just using it as leverage to justify pitching a 20 million dollar rebuild of Fremantle Oval.

wrote:

wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.

Exactly, this penny pinching small brain attitude is ridiculous, all it's done is get a few club presidents excited wetting themselves trying to win a bidding war so it puts money in their coffers. The WAFL is part of the fabric of Western Australian society and AFL fans should not forget it is where the Eagles and Dockers were born from, more so the Eagles. To play it at a sub standard ground that would deny thousands of supporters is complete madness. SF president Peter Christie is just using it as leverage to justify pitching a 20 million dollar rebuild of Fremantle Oval.

That is it in a nutshell DD.
Self interest from a few clubs looking at just their own backyard (eg potential ground upgrades) and no thought whatsoever on the bigger picture which should be for as many fans as possible to attend the GF in complete comfort at our (WA's) purpose built taxpayer funded Perth Stadium! 

wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.
 

I guess they always have the option of moving venues, should ticket sales indicate a demand, which would be fine.

wrote:

wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.

 

I guess they always have the option of moving venues, should ticket sales indicate a demand, which would be fine.

Yeh right, and your mob would be screaming from the concrete terraces that they've already spent tens of thousands on portaloos and temporary seating.

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a potential crowd of say 25-30k is limited to 15k all squashed in with no shade or adequate amenities just to save a few bucks when it should have been covered by the WAFC anyway.


 

I guess they always have the option of moving venues, should ticket sales indicate a demand, which would be fine.
 

Yeh right, and your mob would be screaming from the concrete terraces that they've already spent tens of thousands on portaloos and temporary seating.
 

The enormous profit generated from the 60,000 that would turn up for SDFC v Perth GF would more than cover those relocations costs I am sure.